(March 15, 2018 at 1:24 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not a yec. My proposition is that at some point during human evolution from apes, our brains developed just enough for moral free will (ie, moral responsibility/culpability).

I accept Adam and Eve having been real people, as very early humans with moral responsibility for wrong doings. But obviously I don't believe in the literal story, where there was a paradise garden with a snake and a forbidden apple.

Who did Adam and Eve get their morals from?

That I don't know. I'm just saying that's when I think moral awareness happened - when the brain became advanced enough to sufficiently understand that there exists right and wrong, not necessarily that they knew exactly what specific action was right and what was wrong. Im sure that continued to develop and build as time went on and still does so today.

(March 15, 2018 at 10:00 am)alpha male Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 9:20 am)robvalue Wrote: I find this hard to get my head around.

Do people really believe this stuff, or do they say what they want to be true?

Really believe it. I don't want the world to be any particular age. Has no bearing on my life. I'm just going where the evidence takes me. Note that as a Christian, the Bible is evidence to me - the most important evidence.

Quote:Are they saying what they are expected to say by their peers?

No. There are plenty of churches (including the largest one) that accept mainstream science on such matters. There's no need to be in a YEC church.

Quote:Is it possible to truly believe the Earth is so young?

Yes.

Quote:Is it physically distressing to try to keep yourself convinced of this?

No

Quote:Why is it important?

It isn't particularly important. You don't see me bringing it up. Why is it important to you guys?

Quote:Is it just to try and hang on to some sort of literal interpretation of a story book?

No. The Bible can be interpreted other than literally where the context warrants it. I've just never seen a good argument that Gen 1 was intended allegorically.

Quote:Why that aspect, when other parts of it are so easily ignored?

No parts are easily ignored by me. Some parts don't apply to me, but I reach that conclusion through study. I don't ignore them, and I still read them to learn about God, even though they don't specifically apply to me.

Quote:I don't really expect any answers here, I'm just thinking out loud. It gets to the point where I feel that I'm in a different dimension. I guess the most likely answer is indoctrination, having these things drilled into your head before you can properly think about them. I shouldn't be surprised by its power at this stage.

Not indoctrination. I accepted the mainstream science view because I went to public school and was indoctrinated into that.  We went to a typical protestant church sporadically, and I don't recall the church ever addressing origins issues.

Anyone who's interested in understanding, rather than mocking, might want to check out this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-John-Ash...F8&qid=&sr=

Nah, I'm good with mocking.  There are a lot theists around who could show you something in a less mockable faith, or if you like I could point you something very becoming as well as stylishly secular.  But if you don't like being mocked try harder.

---

(March 15, 2018 at 1:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 1:24 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Who did Adam and Eve get their morals from?

That I don't know. I'm just saying that's when I think moral awareness happened - when the brain became advanced enough to sufficiently understand that there exists right and wrong, not necessarily that they knew exactly what specific action was right and what was wrong. Im sure that continued to develop and build as time went on and still does so today.

Catholicism is like a huge tent with room for everyone from the most literal minded to the most allegorically inclined priest, who nonetheless is happy to keep speaking the allegorical in a form amenable to the needs of the literally minded.  Very accommodating that way.

(March 15, 2018 at 1:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 1:24 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Who did Adam and Eve get their morals from?

That I don't know. I'm just saying that's when I think moral awareness happened - when the brain became advanced enough to sufficiently understand that there exists right and wrong, not necessarily that they knew exactly what specific action was right and what was wrong. Im sure that continued to develop and build as time went on and still does so today.

People who never heard of Yahweh developed moral systems, so it's clearly not god-dependent.

(March 15, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not a yec. My proposition is that at some point during human evolution from apes, our brains developed just enough for moral free will (ie, moral responsibility/culpability).

I accept Adam and Eve having been real people, as very early humans with moral responsibility for wrong doings. But obviously I don't believe in the literal story, where there was a paradise garden with a snake and a forbidden apple.

Why do you say obviously? You find a literal interpretation to be a little ridiculous?

(March 15, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not a yec. My proposition is that at some point during human evolution from apes, our brains developed just enough for moral free will (ie, moral responsibility/culpability).

I accept Adam and Eve having been real people, as very early humans with moral responsibility for wrong doings. But obviously I don't believe in the literal story, where there was a paradise garden with a snake and a forbidden apple.

Why do you say obviously? You find a literal interpretation to be a little ridiculous?

Because it wouldn't make sense for me to accept evolution and then believe in the part about the snake and the apple as having been literal.

(March 15, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Aegon Wrote: Why do you say obviously? You find a literal interpretation to be a little ridiculous?

Because it wouldn't make sense for me to accept evolution and then believe in the part about the snake and the apple as having been literal.

True. You've reconciled your beliefs with the scientific reality as we know it today. I was far from a YEC when I believed too. I also accepted evolution, but I still fervently believed in the New Testament. I do have a question though: if you can accept evolution, why do you still believe in the stories of a man who could walk on water and rise from the grave? In other words, what about the Gospels make more sense to you than the OT? They both seem pretty unlikely, bordering on ridiculous if you'll excuse the disrespectful connotation of the word. And we've certainly proven scientifically that people cannot walk on water or rise from the grave.

I'm not challenging you, I'm just genuinely curious. Because when I was Catholic I didn't exactly have an answer to those things.

(March 15, 2018 at 1:40 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 10:00 am)alpha male Wrote: Really believe it. I don't want the world to be any particular age. Has no bearing on my life. I'm just going where the evidence takes me. Note that as a Christian, the Bible is evidence to me - the most important evidence.


No. There are plenty of churches (including the largest one) that accept mainstream science on such matters. There's no need to be in a YEC church.


Yes.


No


It isn't particularly important. You don't see me bringing it up. Why is it important to you guys?


No. The Bible can be interpreted other than literally where the context warrants it. I've just never seen a good argument that Gen 1 was intended allegorically.


No parts are easily ignored by me. Some parts don't apply to me, but I reach that conclusion through study. I don't ignore them, and I still read them to learn about God, even though they don't specifically apply to me.


Not indoctrination. I accepted the mainstream science view because I went to public school and was indoctrinated into that.  We went to a typical protestant church sporadically, and I don't recall the church ever addressing origins issues.

Anyone who's interested in understanding, rather than mocking, might want to check out this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-John-Ash...F8&qid=&sr=

Nah, I'm good with mocking.  There are a lot theists around who could show you something in a less mockable faith, or if you like I could point you something very becoming as well as stylishly secular.  But if you don't like being mocked try harder.

---

(March 15, 2018 at 1:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That I don't know. I'm just saying that's when I think moral awareness happened - when the brain became advanced enough to sufficiently understand that there exists right and wrong, not necessarily that they knew exactly what specific action was right and what was wrong. Im sure that continued to develop and build as time went on and still does so today.

Catholicism is like a huge tent with room for everyone from the most literal minded to the most allegorically inclined priest, who nonetheless is happy to keep speaking the allegorical in a form amenable to the needs of the literally minded.  Very accommodating that way.

Yeah, as a Catholic so long as you accept the fundamental basics, you are free to take either a literal or allegorical stance to the OT, and some other passages throughout the bible.

(March 15, 2018 at 3:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yeah, as a Catholic so long as you accepts the fundamental basics, you are free to take either a literal or allegorical stance to the OT, and some other passages throughout the bible.

It's perfectly understandable that believers might wish to treat the more fanciful stories in the OT allegorically because literal readings of some of them would lead to ridiculously childish conclusions . . . unlike those rock-solid stories in the NT (you know, the 'fundamental basics').  

(March 15, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(March 15, 2018 at 3:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because it wouldn't make sense for me to accept evolution and then believe in the part about the snake and the apple as having been literal.

True. You've reconciled your beliefs with the scientific reality as we know it today. I was far from a YEC when I believed too. I also accepted evolution, but I still fervently believed in the New Testament. I do have a question though: if you can accept evolution, why do you still believe in the stories of a man who could walk on water and rise from the grave? In other words, what about the Gospels make more sense to you than the OT? They both seem pretty unlikely, bordering on ridiculous if you'll excuse the disrespectful connotation of the word. And we've certainly proven scientifically that people cannot walk on water or rise from the grave.

I'm not challenging you, I'm just genuinely curious. Because when I was Catholic I didn't exactly have an answer to those things.

There is historical evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified. And to me, the rapid spread of early Christianity during a time without good means of transportation or communication further supports the idea that something truly extraordinary was going on. It helps give credit to the miracles depicted in the Gospels.

And not only is there historical evidence for Jesus' existance, but for others in the NT as well - the deciples, John the Baptist, Punctious Pilot, Paul, etc...

(March 15, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not a yec. My proposition is that at some point during human evolution from apes, our brains developed just enough for moral free will (ie, moral responsibility/culpability).

I accept Adam and Eve having been real people, as very early humans with moral responsibility for wrong doings. But obviously I don't believe in the literal story, where there was a paradise garden with a snake and a forbidden apple.

When you say "very early humans" youre not saying they were the first of humankind, but two among many, right? Otherwise, it would be paradoxical to believe humans evolved from ancestral apes while also believing Adam and Eve were the two human ancestors of all humankind.